In the spirited cultural debate over the possibilities and risks of artificial intelligence, the imagined pros and cons have tended toward the sensational. There’s been little mainstream attention paid to the technology’s potential impact on the everyday tasks that keep our cities humming—things like construction permit reviews, development application processes, and planning code compliance enforcement. But the needs in those areas are quite real, and experiments to apply newer AI breakthroughs to these kinds of operations are already well underway. Municipalities large and small, from Florida to New England, and Canada to Australia, have announced AI-related pilots and other exploratory efforts.

While the approaches vary, the challenges are practically universal. Determining whether proposed construction or development projects meet all land and building codes is a detail-intensive, often slow process: It can be confusing for applicants and require extensive back-end work for municipalities and other authorities. The hope is that AI can help make that process—or “the tedious parts of city planning,” as the publication Government Technology bluntly put it—speedier and more efficient, as well as more accurate and comprehensible. Ideally, it would even allow planning departments to streamline and reallocate resources.

But as city officials working with the new technology make clear, there’s a long way to go to get to that point. And given that some of AI’s most publicized moments to date involve embarrassing failures (such as Google’s AI search tool advising users on the benefits of eating rocks and adding glue to pizza), they are proceeding with caution.

There’s often a “hype cycle” between a new technology’s early promise and its eventual reality, cautions Andreas Boehm, the intelligent cities manager for Kelowna, British Columbia, a city of about 145,000. His team is specifically charged with seeking new opportunities to leverage tech innovations for the city and its residents. Despite a lot of chatter, we still haven’t seen many “concrete, tangible examples” of AI as a “transformative” force in planning systems, Boehm says. But we may start to see real results soon.

Canada is experiencing a housing shortage, Boehm notes, and moving faster on new construction could help. The permitting pipeline is clogged with inquiries from current property owners about zoning and code issues for more routine projects. For a few years, Kelowna has been using a chatbot to answer common questions, Boehm says. That has helped, but the more recent “generative” version of AI can handle a much broader range of inquiries, phrased in natural language, with precise and specific responses. So Kelowna began working with Microsoft to build a new and much more sophisticated version of the tool incorporating Microsoft’s Copilot AI functionality, which they now use to aid permit applicants.

Boehm says the Intelligent Cities team and its consultants worked with a range of residents (including those with no permitting knowledge) as well as experienced builders to develop the tool; it can give high-level responses or point to specific code provisions. It has notably streamlined, and sped up, the application process. “It frees up our staff time” because fewer questions need to be addressed by staff early in the process, Boehm says. “So now they can focus on processing applications that are coming in. And often these applications are much better quality because people are using these AI tools as they’re putting these applications together, and getting all the information they need.”

On the other side of Canada, the city of Burlington, Ontario, near Toronto, has been developing generative AI tools in collaboration with Australian property and tech firm Archistar. Chad MacDonald, Burlington’s chief information officer (and previously executive director of digital service), says Burlington, population 200,000, also faces a housing crunch. With little space available for single-family housing construction, the city’s focus is on improving the process of handling larger projects, including industrial and commercial proposals, with an eye toward creating a single platform that would work for all kinds of projects. The system the city is developing aims to integrate not only local zoning and bylaws, but also the Ontario Building Code, which affects all structures in the province.

Testing this system involves checking whether it correctly assesses previously submitted plans whose outcome is known. This process also trains the AI. “Every time we correct an inaccuracy in the algorithm, it actually makes it smarter,” MacDonald explains. “So the next time it gets more and more accurate.” And if the proposed solution to one permit problem could create two more problems in the application, the system is designed to point that out immediately, avoiding a lengthy resubmission process. An “extremely successful” round of testing was completed in May, MacDonald says, and he expects the city’s use of the technology to expand.

MacDonald envisions the technology advancing to the point of creating code-compliant designs. But won’t that put engineers and architects out of business? He counters that it’s vital to keep humans in the loop. “This is about speeding up these really mundane processes,” he says, “and then allowing these very highly educated and specialized experts to focus on the things they really need to focus on.”

In Honolulu, expanding the use of AI tools is part of a more sweeping tech-plan upgrade to address a significant permitting backlog—in 2021, the city’s mayor declared the process “broken” and committed to an overhaul. In 2022, a permit prescreen process involved “an intolerable six-month wait” to reach a reviewer, says Dawn Takeuchi Apuna, director of Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting. The city added an AI bot that was able to review some of the prescreen checklist items in a newly streamlined process, and it helped cut that wait to two or three days. That success helped lead to a more expansive generative AI pilot with Chicago-based startup CivCheck, a relationship Takeuchi Apuna expects to continue.

“We have learned that there are enormous possibilities of AI in our business processes,” she says, “and that the most important piece is the people that are using it.” She emphasizes that this is just part of an overhaul that also includes better staff training and improved communication with applicants. “It’s a value that you must bring and continue to enforce as part of AI in order to get the best results.”

While these early results are promising, AI still presents plenty of challenges and wildcards. Some of the startup’s promising, powerful generative AI tools are untested. And as MacDonald points out, the technology isn’t cheap. There’s also a need to set standards around what data the process collects and how it can be used. (Kelowna, for example, is working with the nonprofit Montreal AI Ethics Institute on policy and guidance issues.) And, of course, there are broader public concerns about giving too much control to an automated tool, however seemingly intelligent and teachable that tool may be. “It’s not going to replace people,” Boehm says. “We’re never going to just issue you a building permit from an AI bot.”

In fact, he continues, that concern could be considered an opportunity, if cities use AI thoughtfully and transparently. Although government is often opaque and thus treated with skepticism by many, AI “is a great opportunity to demystify government,” Boehm says. “It [can increase the] understanding that this is really about people in the end and supporting them.” In other words, in the best-case scenario, AI might improve a knotty but vital bureaucratic process by giving it a more human touch.

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. He is the author of the Lincoln Institute book City Tech: 20 Apps, Ideas, and Innovators Changing the Urban Landscape. His newsletter is at robwalker.substack.com.

Lead image credit: PhonlamaiPhoto via iStock/Getty Images Plus.

The Lincoln Institute provides a variety of early- and mid-career fellowship opportunities for researchers. In this series, we follow up with our fellows to learn more about their work.

A few years after earning her PhD in public policy from Harvard University, Jenny Schuetz participated in the Lincoln Institute Scholars program, which introduces early-career researchers to senior academics and journal editors. Schuetz now studies housing and land use policy as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; she’s also a lecturer in Georgetown University’s urban planning department, and the author of Fixer Upper: How to Repair America’s Broken Housing Systems.

In this interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Schuetz discusses the ascent of zoning into the mainstream consciousness, the perplexing direction of climate migration in the United States, and how climate risk is threatening to upend the housing market.

JON GOREY: What was your experience with the Lincoln Scholars program?

JENNY SCHUETZ: When I did it, the focus was on matching up relatively early-career scholars with some of the experienced journal editors in the field and getting information on how you get your work into publications. How do you present it to an editor in a way that’s compelling, and work through the back and forth of the peer review process? And that was incredibly helpful, because it’s sort of a black box when you start out; you send off a paper, and you get back either a “revise and resubmit” or a rejection, but you often don’t really understand why. So getting to talk to some journal editors about what makes a compelling paper and how they think about pairing papers with reviewers was really useful.

I love that Lincoln does this. The cohort of junior people that I went through it with, we’re all now a little gray-haired and middle aged, but we still see each other. And it’s nice to see newer cohorts coming up through this. That’s a great way for the field to transfer knowledge and to help junior people grow.

JG: What have you been working on more recently, and what are you interested in working on next?

JS: A lot of my research still focuses on the role of zoning and land use regulations in restricting housing supply, and this has become a very hot topic in the last five or six years. One of the things that I’m actually doing now is working directly with state governments that are passing state level zoning reforms and trying to get those implemented and turned into more housing production. The implementation piece is really important—you don’t just write a policy and it implements itself, you have to have actual human beings doing things to implement it.

In fact, I’m just getting ready for a workshop in September with the Lincoln Institute, where we’re bringing together state housing agencies from seven or eight different states to talk to one another and share what kinds of challenges they’re running into, what kinds of successes. It’s a great chance for policymakers to talk to their peers in a way that they don’t often get to do, and we get to learn in real time what’s happening on the ground.

The second big piece of my research is looking at the intersection between housing and climate adaptation. There’s quite a bit of research coming out to show that, on average, Americans are moving toward more climate-risky places. We still have this movement away from the Northeast and Midwest toward the Sun Belt, so we are moving to places with extreme heat risk, drought risk, wildfire risk, and then people moving to Florida are moving into hurricane risk.

That’s going to have real repercussions for things like insurance markets, which are already seeing spiking premiums, and our national disaster recovery programs—we’re spending more and more money because we have more and more people and more expensive housing in these risky places. And we really don’t have a good handle on why people are doing this.

JG: What’s one of the most surprising things you’ve learned in your research?

JS: That people are overwhelmingly moving toward risky places at a time when disasters are becoming more and more salient and expensive is counterintuitive. And the reasons for it are complicated. Some of it is people don’t know what it’s like to live in 115 degrees until they move there, or people are overly optimistic [about their exposure to hurricane risk].

But also our policies aren’t designed to send the right market signals. It should be a lot more expensive to buy a house and take on a mortgage and buy insurance in places that are really risky—but our policies don’t allow that to happen, because we’re trying to keep homeownership affordable for middle-income Americans. We want everybody to buy a house and invest in it, and so we have to make it artificially cheap for people to do that, and then it encourages people to buy in the wrong places.

JG: What do you wish more people out there knew about housing?

JS: One of my longstanding beefs has been that the US leans very heavily on homeownership for wealth building. And as a motivation for that, we have not provided good standards of living and protection for renters, and have made renting seem like it’s a second-class option—that you’re a renter only until you can afford to become a homeowner. I think that has led to a lot of subtle discrimination against renters, and a lot of people not taking seriously that we need to make renting a good option.

Most of us will be renters at some point in our lives. We should just make renting a reasonable option for middle-class households for as long as it suits their needs—that should be an okay option for people at all ages and stages of their life.

JG: When it comes to your work, what keeps you up at night? And what gives you hope?

JS: The climate stuff keeps me up at night. One of the chapters in my book was about climate, and I read a lot more than I had previously on this stuff and decided, wow—this needs to be a major focus of my research, because it’s so big and important and it’s not being talked about in productive ways that get us to better policies.

On the optimistic side, there are two things. One is that we are having a lot more national public conversations about housing, whether that’s affordability or insurance premiums. I mean, zoning never got mentioned in broader media discussions or in presidential elections until four years ago, and now it’s on the front page of the newspaper a lot. So I think a broader understanding of some of the problems is really helpful for starting to move forward.

And there is so much policy experimentation and energy at the state and local level, so many cities and states that are trying new things. We’ve done the same thing with our land use for 70 or 80 years, and now suddenly we’re trying new stuff, which is great. There’s a lot of grassroots energy, and much of this is coming from younger households—which are really motivated to fix this problem—and they are getting engaged with local politics in constructive ways, trying to push their local elected officials to do better. So the kids give me hope.

JG: You’ve written at length about accessory dwelling units (ADUs), among other things, and now several states have essentially legalized ADUs statewide. What does it feel like when a policy or idea you’ve written about extensively gets adopted at a high level?

JS: It’s pretty rare that you can see your idea directly show up in policy—policymakers talk to a lot of experts, and they get a lot of opinions thrown at them, so it’s often very hard to trace your immediate impact. But it’s exciting to see ideas take shape. Both to see them translated into policy, but I think, equally, to hear people start talking about them in the ways that we’re framing the problem. I like to say we’ve got two affordability problems: the lack of supply and poor households not earning enough. And that framing has gotten picked up in a lot of places, and they’re talking about it in a more constructive way.

JG: What’s the best book you’ve read lately, or a show you’ve been streaming?

JS: I’ve been reading a lot of books about climate and housing, and they’re really depressing. I’ve been streaming “Killing Eve”—I was late to the party on that one—but that’s just fun and escapist. I love spy stories and mystery stories, and that’s a good one. It actually makes me feel like real life is okay, because there aren’t spies lurking in every corner ready to kill me!

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Jenny Schuetz of the Brookings Institution testifies before the US Congress Joint Economic Committee about expanding the supply of affordable housing. Credit: Courtesy of Jenny Schuetz.

In the small beachside settlement of Praia do Xavier, along Brazil’s northeastern coast, villagers have long practiced traditional raft fishing, farmed the dunes, or harvested shellfish as a way of life. They did so for generations without any infrastructure to speak of—no roads, schools, electricity, or running water—on what was common land, freely accessible to the public.

That is, until the Brazilian government allowed much of that land to be privatized so a European company could install a 50-turbine wind farm along the shoreline to capture the coastal breezes. The construction of the 2,570-acre wind farm in the state of Ceará added up to 104 megawatts of clean energy to Brazil’s electric grid when it opened in 2009, but it also drained the lagoons that villagers relied upon for winter fishing and impeded their access to other traditional fishing grounds.

Ramping up renewable energy production is a crucial climate goal, and one that Brazil has excelled at to date. But the rush to produce more solar and wind power has also led to new forms of land speculation and “green grabbing.” A study by University College London researchers found that over a third of wind parks installed in Brazil from 2000 to 2021 were built on legally dubious grounds, either on common lands or without legal titles, and most are owned by international investors.

A pair of researchers in Brazil is now studying how such land use decisions are being made, with a particular focus on the state of Ceará, and how to ensure renewable energy expansion doesn’t result in further climate injustices. Their project is one of seven finalists selected for support through a request for proposals issued by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in March.

“Society can’t afford to delay the energy transition or the work needed to adapt to our changing climate,” says Amy Cotter, director of urban sustainability at the Lincoln Institute. “But we need to do so in a way that avoids undermining people’s ability to provide for themselves and their families at a time when that ability is already challenged by climate change itself.” It’s a tension unfolding around the world, as governments, utilities, and nonprofits try to achieve a quick but just transition to clean energy, balancing the critical need for rapid renewable energy development with other demands on the land.

“With this suite of research, we hope to help accelerate climate action that anticipates and avoids or offsets any negative consequences,” Cotter says.

Through case studies and interviews, Flavia Collaço, visiting professor at Universidade Federal do Ceará, and Joachim Stassart, a PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia, will analyze the expert and government knowledge, technological tools, and underlying politics that inform how land is allocated for renewable energy projects, why that process often ignores traditional and communal land uses, and how it could be improved to reduce land dispossession and climate injustices as more wind and solar projects go forward.

The first stage of Brazil’s wind projects was almost all installed along the coast, Collaço says. “So it’s mainly affected small artisanal fishermen, and Indigenous people and traditional communities that live in this coastal region,” she says. “But the second stage of wind projects is coming to the countryside, and that means new challenges and new types of communities and ecosystems that are going to be impacted.”

“Brazil is a country with a lot of land conflicts and a lot of speculation related to land, but it’s usually and historically been related to agriculture,” Stassart notes. “With this renewable energy boom, there’s this new form of speculation, and it’s in areas that weren’t the target of land conflict in the past.”

Parts of rural Ceará have yet to go through a formal land regularization process, which creates potential for land conflict and speculation as renewable projects move inland. “In Brazil, it’s very common, especially in the most remote areas, that there are a lot of overlapping land claims and a lot of informality in the land sector,” Stassart says. “So people can be using the land for generations without holding a title to it . . . there are still a lot of Indigenous and local communities who don’t have access to a formal land title that recognizes their rights.”

Less than a fifth of Ceará has yet to be regularized, but much of that land is in areas now targeted for new wind and solar installations, which has set the formalization process in motion, Collaço says. “So our research is going to capture precisely the beginning of this process.”

The Lincoln Institute selected six other projects to support through this RFP, many of which focus on curtailing “green grabbing” practices:

• Researchers from the SD Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies in Ghana will perform a literature analysis and empirical case study on the rise and fall of land-based biofuel investments in Sub-Saharan Africa, to understand why most of these projects have failed, collapsed, or been abandoned.
• National strategies for reducing biodiversity loss and land-based emissions are often isolated as separate policy goals, despite their obvious connections. A team from the University of British Columbia, University of Melbourne, and the Land Gap research collective will examine the feasibility of including national strategies as part of a just transition, identifying both the role and the limitations of domestic policy in addressing the drivers of deforestation.
• An international and interdisciplinary team led by the German Institute for Global and Area Studies will assess the impacts of land-intensive carbon-offset projects on the livelihoods of local communities in Madagascar and Indonesia, and the effectiveness of sustainability standards in addressing these impacts.
• An environmental consultant affiliated with the University of Lausanne in Switzerland will look at how the establishment of protected areas for conservation purposes over the past century has often led to conflict or even outright tragedy for Indigenous peoples and local communities, with the goal of drawing lessons for how large-scale ecosystem and forest restoration projects can avoid having the same negative impacts.
• In Central Appalachia, corporate landowners have long extracted resources and value while leaving locals impoverished. As the region’s forests draw interest for their carbon sequestration potential, a University of Colorado at Colorado Springs researcher will use power mapping, interviews, and data analysis to evaluate the initial outcomes of the Family Forest Carbon Program. The new endeavor, by the American Forest Foundation and The Nature Conservancy, aims to enroll small landowners in Kentucky and West Virginia as beneficiaries of the expanding carbon market.
• A team from the University of Technology Sydney will look at emerging community partnership models in Australian cities that have allowed community-driven conservation efforts to reach scale and expand their impact by overcoming common barriers to such initiatives, including a lack of secure land and stringent land use planning standards.

To learn more about all Lincoln Institute RFPs, fellowships, and research opportunities, visit the research and fellowship opportunities section of our website.

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Wind turbines at Canoa Quebrada Beach in Ceara, Brazil. Credit: Cristian Lourenço via iStock/Getty Images Plus.

A recent study from the Lancet found that by the start of the next century, more than half of all births will occur in sub-Saharan Africa. Thanks to higher fertility rates and longer life expectancies, the continent’s population is on track to nearly double to 2.4 billion by 2050, then nearly double again, to 4.2 billion by 2100.

Within Africa, intermediary cities (noncapital cities, typically with a population of 1 million or fewer) are the fastest growing urban places. Between 2022 and 2030, intermediary cities are expected to account for nearly 50 percent of Africa’s overall urban population growth, and this growth will occur largely in cities that currently have fewer than 1 million people. For example, Zinder, the third-largest city in Niger, is expected to more than double its population between 2020 and 2035, growing from about a half-million to over 1 million residents.

The implications of this tremendous growth for people, communities, economies, and the environment are extraordinary, made even more complex by the impacts of climate change and climate migration.

A recent collaboration between the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Challenge Works investigated ways to support effective land use planning, infrastructure investments, land-based financing, and disaster resilience in rapidly growing intermediary cities in Africa. We used a mixed-methods approach that synthesizes literature reviews, interviews with urban policy experts and city officials, and specialist workshops.

We explored:

• the main goals of intermediary cities in Africa when it comes to managing growth;
• the barriers preventing such cities from using data-driven planning, mapping, and land-based financing tools; and
• how a challenge prize could accelerate the creation and scaling of such tools.

Below, we summarize some of the things we learned, and how we plan to take the idea of a challenge prize forward.

Growth is not inherently bad—but can have unintended consequences if not managed.

Often, with population growth comes economic opportunity and improved quality of life. More and better jobs, more economic mobility, and better access to health care, education, and sanitation are among the benefits of population growth.

However, we wanted to dig into questions of land use and infrastructure development knowing that:

• climate vulnerability risks are highest in rapidly growing cities;
• climate change will disproportionately impact people in rapidly urbanizing countries, particularly groups that are already vulnerable;
• the cost of retrofitting infrastructure in informal settlements is three times more expensive than new infrastructure development; and
• with two-thirds of African cities yet to be built, a small window of opportunity exists to make the necessary investments to support future growth patterns based on sustainable and equitable development principles.

Land use planning in intermediary cities is critical to creating more sustainable futures.

In speaking with city leaders and experts within government, NGOs, and industry working in this space, we learned that land use planning has different inputs, outputs, and outcomes. When these are integrated, a virtuous cycle can occur:

• cities can use evidence and insights to inform plans and policies;
• evidence-based, implementable plans that are created with input from diverse stakeholders are more likely to be enforced and lead to better outcomes; and
• this increases the level of trust and evidence available to inform new plans and policies.

The enabling ecosystem—which includes elements like institutional capacity to develop and implement plans, political dynamics, human capacity and skills, funding, cultural norms, and more—also plays an important role in creating and implementing land use plans (or conversely, limiting or obstructing progress).

We also learned that the loop can become ineffective for a number of reasons, which are generally attributed to two primary gaps: first, when effective, evidence-based land use plans are not created, due to organizational barriers (things like internal government silos or lack of planning capacity), political and economic barriers (things like political cycles and competition for resources), and technical barriers (such as lack of quality, up-to-date data); and second, when completed land use plans are not implemented, again due to organizational barriers (like complex land tenure), political and economic barriers (limited authority or resource to implement plans), and technical barriers (lack of local buy-in or weak enforcement powers).

Innovation has the potential to both address pain points within those gaps and strengthen the enabling ecosystem.

For example, we’ve identified city-specific use cases to create context-sensitive solutions that use data analytics to better plan for future mobility needs and transport infrastructure, or to better predict climate risk vulnerabilities and therefore inform land use regulations; apply crowdsourced data and citizen-sensing techniques to create and implement inclusive, equitable land use plans; or examine and collate property registration and valuations to bolster municipal finances and the use of land-based financial tools.

At the ecosystem level, creating new tools or adapting tools to the local context can help organizations leapfrog over traditional planning systems and catalyze new practices, and bring together government agencies or organizations that would not normally collaborate.

Tech solutions can help—but need to be paired with institutional enablers.

While our investigations confirmed the exciting potential for data-driven, digital technologies to help city leaders reduce risk and make more informed decisions, we also learned that new data collection and analysis tools are only as good as the planning and implementation processes they inform. Data-driven tools need to be developed in ways that are people-centered, inclusive, and fair, and are ineffective if they aren’t supported by an enabling ecosystem to implement and update effective plans.

Solutions that pair technical innovation with institutional innovation will enable intermediary cities in Africa to pioneer methods to manage growth in ways that are contextually appropriate and don’t yet exist.

A challenge prize can help spark and scale up solutions.

We propose to run an open innovation challenge in partnership with rapidly growing African intermediary cities. Such a challenge would invite innovators to create, test, and scale solutions to manage rapid growth. The challenge structure is based on partnering with cities to create an open call to innovators, oriented around a specific city use case, which will then work closely with city stakeholders to create custom, locally relevant solutions.

The challenge will include these fundamental features:

• Centering the challenge around opportunities cities want to address. Innovators will respond to challenge statements that reflect the goals cities want to achieve. This is different from, and complementary to, innovation funding approaches that focus on specific technologies or methods.
• Prioritizing scalable and replicable solutions. Our research revealed a number of promising innovations that are already being piloted and implemented in real-world settings. Despite this, scaling solutions remains a barrier. For instance, innovators who have the right data analytics solution may not have access to the permissions needed to test it in the real world, or the relationships to introduce it in places that need innovation. Local governments may not be prepared to adopt and maintain services. The challenge will be designed to address scaling barriers through seed funding, capacity-building, new business models, and access to customers, investors, and networks.
• Providing appropriate incentives and support for innovators to experiment and take risks. The outcome-based, stage-gated funding model of an innovation challenge means that innovators can experiment, while cities can benefit from crowding in a variety of ideas and expertise. Having access to both financial and nonfinancial support enables innovators to develop solutions in ways they might not be able to otherwise.
• Shaping and accelerating innovation in land use planning. By supporting multiple innovators working across multiple use cases and settings, the challenge can accelerate progress in the field of land use planning, as well as steer innovation in a direction more attuned to the needs of rapidly growing cities in low- and middle-income countries.

The time is now.

Africa is both the cradle of civilization and the world’s youngest continent, with half the population under the age of 19. The continent is also facing critical risks related to climate change and associated implications to disaster resilience, food and water security, energy supplies, and more. To ensure that future city growth in Africa is inclusive, equitable, sustainable, and resilient to changing conditions, we urgently need to take action now to accelerate and scale new models to manage growth. Our next steps are to assemble the partners to implement the next stage of the challenge. If you are interested in contributing, get in touch!

With sincere thanks to Stefan Chavez-Norgaard, Teodora Chis, Astrid Haas, Peter Oborn, and the many policy experts, development practitioners, city officials, tech innovators, and others who provided their insights and experiences to shape this program.

Lead image: City market street in Lagos, Nigeria, West Africa. Credit: peeterv via iStock/Getty Images Plus.

Housing costs are putting unbearable pressure on household budgets and threatening the American Dream of homeownership. The statistics are sobering. The Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) estimates that 40 million households—half of all renters and a quarter of all homeowners—are cost-burdened. The main culprit is a chronic shortage of new housing production, accumulated over the last 25 years and abetted by other factors including the great financial crisis, the pandemic, and extreme global wealth inequality. Starter homes are vanishing as institutional investors buy up tens of thousands of them each year and convert them from owner-occupancy to rentals.

Estimates of the magnitude of the housing shortage range from 1.5 million to 5.5 million units. Zillow estimates that we need 4.5 million new units for families who are currently doubled up—i.e., multiple households sharing a single residence. The shortage of affordable housing is even more acute. The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that the United States needs 7.3 million more affordable housing units to accommodate extremely low-income renters. No matter how we count it, this amounts to one to five years of new production at current rates.

Suffice it to say we need a lot of new housing. Most of it needs to be affordable. And we need to build it where people want to and need to live.

To do that well, we need to understand how housing markets work. Important new research from the JCHS shows that new housing added in suburbs has almost no effect on adjacent urban markets. The authors suggest that “a more targeted approach is required if policymakers want to reduce costs in the least affordable neighborhoods” and “building more housing will make cities more affordable for low- and middle-income families only if the newly built housing is relatively affordable and located near those families.”

At the Lincoln Institute, we’re all about solutions—and our solutions always start with land. The biggest obstacle to building new affordable housing is the cost of land. The primary reason for our chronic habit of building affordable housing where we don’t need it is cheap land. So any solution to the nation’s housing crisis will have to start by identifying land that meets three important criteria: it is appropriately located, available, and affordable. Interestingly, that isn’t as hard as it might seem.

Where is the land we need, and how much housing could we build on it? Using a novel geospatial analysis called Who Owns America®, the Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS) at the Lincoln Institute can map and count housing potential with precision. When we began thinking about urban land that is ripe for housing development, publicly owned land emerged as an obvious candidate—places like underused urban parking lots and brownfields.

How much prime buildable land (large parcels in transit-rich urban locations) is owned by various levels of government in the United States? The CGS analysis, detailed in a new report published today, estimates over a quarter million acres.

This includes over 237,000 acres of land owned by local government (cities and counties), nearly 34,000 acres of state-owned land, and about 5,200 acres of federal land. These parcels all have at least 20,000 square feet of developable area with no building larger than 1,000 square feet. CGS’s team of geospatial data experts screened out wetlands, parks and other green space, and rights of way.

This is the lowest-hanging of low-hanging fruit. If we developed these parcels to low-density standards (seven units per acre), we could produce more than 1.9 million housing units. If we got ambitious and built out to higher-density standards of 25 units per acre, government-owned land could yield 6.9 million units of new housing.

Skeptics might argue that this land is not distributed where we need it or where people want to live. Interestingly, the states with the largest amounts of buildable public lands are Florida, Massachusetts, Washington, Texas, and California—home to some of the most expensive housing markets in the country. It is stunning to see that many of the places where we need affordable housing most are the places with significant amounts of public land available for development.

There is an additional portfolio of other opportunities to build housing on nongovernment land. For example, redeveloping underperforming urban and suburban malls and strip malls to higher density multi-use standards. This approach, applied to just 30 percent of the estimated total stock of these shopping centers, could add 3.4 million units of housing nationally. Or consider the emerging “Yes in God’s Back Yard” effort allowing multifamily housing to be built on church-owned land as of right. CGS estimates that churches own more than 32,000 acres in transit-rich urban areas. If developed to the more aggressive transit-oriented development standards (25 units per acre), they would yield more than 800,000 units.

Building on prime land owned by various levels of government and by churches could allow our country to completely overshoot even the highest estimates of what we need to address the housing shortage. This does not even include the new housing potential of redeveloped derelict or underperforming malls, accessory dwelling units, or converting Class B office buildings to residential use. And this would all be additive to the “normal” pace of housing development of about 1.4 million units per year.

These are ballpark estimates, offered to suggest that the housing crisis is not an unassailable challenge. It might be hard to overcome, but it’s not impossible.

So what would it look like to take this challenge on? Maybe we can set a goal of adding 7 million new units to our “normal” rate of housing production in the next 10 years. That would mean building an average of 2.1 million units per year for the next decade. Is it reasonable to think we can ramp up housing production by 50 percent? Sure. We completed 2.1 million units of new housing in 1973 when the economy was about one-quarter the size it is today (as measured by real GDP). In 2006, we produced 1.98 million new units when the economy was a little more than half the size it is today. Thus, ramping up production sufficiently to meet this goal is clearly not out of the realm of possibility.

What we need is a new public-private-civic partnership like the one that built the suburbs and millions of units of affordable urban housing after World War II. Assembling the land is the first step. Next, we’ll need to mobilize the financing. At $400,000 per unit (this is the median price of a new house today according to Redfin; per-unit costs would be lower for more modest homes), we’ll need $2.8 trillion to get the job done—about 1 percent of GDP each year for 10 years. This is about half of what we spent for COVID-19 relief, and a lot of the expenditure will be covered by the private sector and recovered through home sales, rent revenues, and land leases. We’ll need to train and employ hundreds of thousands of construction workers. At a full-time job creation rate of 2.9 jobs per house, that will mean about 2 million jobs per year. And we’ll need to work with local governments to streamline the approval process. But the estimated additional $7.8 trillion in tax revenues and fees generated by the new housing should sweeten the pot.

We know how to do these things; we just need the will to take them on. Sure, there are lots of details to be ironed out and real costs involved, but there is also real and precisely measurable opportunity in the land all around us. Finding adequate shelter for our families is critical—and a government created by the people and for the people should not hesitate to find ways to put its own buildable land to work.

George W. McCarthy is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead Image: Residential buildings in Tampa, Florida. Credit: DraganSaponjic via iStock/Getty Images Plus.

Jacob Frey is an unabashed transplant. While attending law school at Villanova, the Virginia native and professional runner came to Minneapolis to run the Twin Cities Marathon and, as he tells it, fell in love with the city. The day after graduating, he drove the 1,200 miles west to Minneapolis, his chosen home.

He started as an employment and civil rights attorney, became a community organizer, served on the City Council, and was elected mayor in 2017, promptly faced with COVID and the police murder of George Floyd in 2020. He was re-elected in 2021 and continued to address police and race relations, as well as the connections among racial equity, affordability, and zoning.

Senior Fellow Anthony Flint interviewed Frey while visiting Minneapolis for the American Planning Association National Planning Conference. Frey later joined the Lincoln Institute and two other mayors from legacy cities—Aftab Pureval of Cincinnati and Paige Cognetti of Scranton—for a standing-room-only APA panel discussion about what’s working in legacy cities.

The interview, which has been edited for length, can be heard in full on the Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint: Minneapolis has been a pioneer in zoning reform and banning single-family-only zoning. How is it going? Can you talk a little bit about whether increasing supply is a good path to affordability?

Jacob Frey: There are two critical paths that you need to take simultaneously to achieve affordability. The first is subsidy. It’s bridging the gap between the market rate and the affordable rate, making sure that people who are experiencing homelessness have that next rung on the ladder to pull themselves out. That side of the equation can’t be achieved simply through supply; it requires some government intervention.

About 10 years ago when I first took office as a city council member, I said very clearly that we were going to go to war on surface parking lots. We were going to dramatically add supply and density, and we did. We coupled that with a comprehensive plan which, as you mentioned, got rid of single-family exclusive zoning, allowing duplexes and triplexes in residential neighborhoods, and then also adding density and height along commercial corridors.

All those things have allowed Minneapolis to keep rents down more than just about any other major city in the country. Other cities were seeing double-digit increases, where we were keeping our rent increases to 1 percent and 2 percent. That’s with a whole lot of new people moving in. We’ve dramatically increased supply and it’s helped a whole lot.

For years, we were operating under these prescriptive zoning ordinances that explicitly said, we’re going to keep the Blacks and the Jews in one portion of the city. When that became illegal to do explicitly, we then started to do the same stuff implicitly through the zoning code, making it so that unless you could own a huge home on a huge parcel, you couldn’t live in huge swaths of the city. The tails of those decisions continued to the present. We wanted to push back on that. We’re going for a diversity of housing options in every neighborhood, and therefore a diversity of people in every neighborhood. In the last three years, we’ve built over 1,000 housing units in multifamily buildings on parcels that previously would only allow a single-family home.

We’ve seen a whole lot of progress . . . and then we got sued. We’re going to ultimately win, whether through legislation or through the litigation itself. Everybody should have that opportunity to live in a great city, and we want to create that opportunity for everyone.

AF: For people outside of Minneapolis, who did you get sued by, and what was the rationale?

JF: We got sued by a group of people who said we were doing something that would harm the environment, and I adamantly disagree. One of the best ways to improve the environment, to reduce your individual carbon output, is by living in a great city. Rather than commuting 45 minutes into work from your own single-family home and picket fence out in the suburbs or exurbs, you can walk to the grocery store and take your bicycle to work. If you do take a car, well, it’s fewer miles traveled anyway. The suit is largely saying that we should have conducted an environmental review on this comprehensive plan and the total potential build-out. Let’s be real here. We can’t assume that every single building downtown is going to be 100 stories tall and every single-family home is going to be a triplex, because that is never going to happen. The way they were asking us to calculate this buildout is not operating in reality.

AF: Turning now to transit and mobility, how are you achieving your vision for sustainable mobility in a historically car-dependent metropolis?

JF: Our city was built out at a time when people were largely dependent on cars. To the extent that it was built out prior to that time period, the streets and the grids were shifted to make them car-centric. Of course, we recognize that cars are a way people get around, but we want to add options so people can safely and comfortably take their bike to work, we want to make it so that pedestrians feel comfortable and in fact are prioritized, we want to add public transportation, not just as an option that’s available occasionally, but as a convenient one for getting from point A to point B.

We are adding bus rapid transit wherever we can. We’ve seen a dramatic uptick in the number of BRT lines, and over the last 15 years, Minneapolis has grown by about 50,000 people, yet the total vehicle miles traveled and gas emissions have gone down.

We recognize that people are going to take cars and we’re going to try to make those cars as sustainable as possible through electric vehicle charging stations. Right now we’re adding bus-specific transit lanes as well so that you can take the bus and whip by traffic that you would otherwise be sitting in.

AF: What is your assessment of land-based financing to fund transit, redevelopment, affordable housing, and parks? The idea is that government action and investments create value in private land and development. Isn’t it possible to harness some portion of that increase in value and plow it back into the community? Are you a value capture fan?

JF: I think it’s not smart to be pro-value capture, pro-TIF, or anti–value capture, anti-TIF. It is a very important tool and needs to be balanced.

There is a way to enhance a city by using tools such as value capture and TIF to achieve wonderful structures and building and transportation options that would not happen but for government intervention. We’ve been using it in a number of different ways, including one of the most popular policy moves I’d say we’ve done in the last few years, which is to knock down this old Kmart. To take you back: 40 or 50 years [ago] there was a policy decision made to block off Nicollet Avenue and put a big Kmart in a huge parking lot in the middle of it.

It would be somewhat unfair of me to question decisions that were made at that time, because I’m sure 40 years from now, there are decisions I will have made that turn out to be not so smart, but this is one of the worst, in my opinion, urban planning decisions that was made in our city. We found ways to get land control over that former Kmart. We are knocking the building down. We’re opening up the street and breathing new life into this important artery and making sure everything is there, from a park to affordable housing to commercial to market rate. It allows the flow of entrepreneurship and new business growth on that corridor to expand south and north. A big part of what we’re using to achieve this large-scale goal is value capture.

It is a tool that should be used, but it’s also a tool that shouldn’t be used every single time there’s a new building that goes up or a new opportunity to be had. It’s got to be a balance.

AF: A task force is looking at changes to the Metropolitan Council, but in what ways is this pioneering arrangement working? Can or should it be replicable, this idea of regional governance?

JF: You can’t think about any city as living in a vacuum. Mayor Carter [of St. Paul] and I joke that it’s not like we just protect the water on our side of the Mississippi River. We share. Likewise, we share an economy that doesn’t end where the street ends and the boundary starts.

I’ve got a responsibility to the city of Minneapolis, and it helps to have a governing body that has a regional focus. We’ve got a Metropolitan Council appointed largely by the governor that helps us put up light rail that goes through a number of different municipalities. It helps us design bus-rapid transit, helps pay for Metropolitan Transit police. To have that regional focus is not just important; it’s crucial to furthering a regional mindset and goal.

AF: What’s your view on skyways? Current urban planning practices suggest a focus on the street and activity at the street level. Is there a conflict there? Tell us a little bit about the urban design part of your job.

JF: If you’ve got 100,000, 200,000 people coming downtown, and you’ve got two levels of activity, you’re splitting whatever number it is between those two levels.Do I like the splitting of activity? Of course I don’t. Nobody does. I’d rather have a concentration of all that bustle and excitement and vibrancy all on one level. But I use the skyways. During the months where it’s cold, I go in and I grab a sandwich and I don’t feel guilty about it. In fact, I’m really pumped to see the small local business owners that are operating in it.

Skyways have been hit particularly hard in the last few years because of a decrease in the number of workers that come downtown on an annual basis. I will not take any more criticism about the lack of vibrancy downtown or somebody’s favorite sandwich shop closing, from the person that’s sitting on their couch at home in the suburbs. If you care, then you should be supporting that sandwich shop.

If you want to see vibrance and want to see more foot traffic, your feet should be adding to that traffic. We are increasing the numbers pretty dramatically right now. People are definitely coming back, but it’s not happening all in one big burst.

AF: It’s become a bit of a cliche, but there really is no substitute for being in the office.

JF: It’s the unplanned interactions that ultimately help. I’m largely in Minneapolis because of a coincidence. You meet somebody, you get a job, you get an interview, you find a great city that you fall in love with. These things only happen because you were there to have it happen to you.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, contributing editor of Land Lines, and author of Mayor’s Desk: 20 Conversations with Local Leaders Solving Global Problems.

Lead image: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. Credit: Office of Mayor Frey.